Knowlton v. Hoit
30 A. 346
N.H.1891Check TreatmentHazen was a contractor, exercising an independent employment, and selecting his own servants and workmen. He was not an ordinary laborer, personally engaged in tbe cutting of the trees, nor acting under control of tbe defendant. Tbe injuries of which tbe plaintiffs complain were not tbe natural result of tbe work contracted to be done. Tbe contract was to do an act in itself lawful, and tbe authority conferred by tbe defendant on Hazen was that of executing it in a lawful manner. Tbe maxim, respondeat superior, does not apply. Carter v. Berlin Mills Co., 58 N. H. 52.
Judgment for the defendant.